HiLo48

Contents

It prefers power abusing administrators, incompetent administrators, shallow minded administrators, POV pushing administrators, bullying administrators working in gangs fighting over an appropriate penalty for me being a normal Australian, and uncommunicative administrators with itchy trigger fingers who have no interest in why I did whatever it was that upset them.

It prefers ungrateful, wilfully ignorant editors, parochial editors, platitude spouting editors, vexatious editors, obsessed editors, accusatory editors, POV pushing editors, semi-illiterate editors, and editors who are blissfully unaware that American spelling and other American customs are not the only ones that exist, and who will argue when you suggest otherwise. It attacks and condemns anyone who dares to mention or tries to do anything about the project’s appalling systemic biases.

It prefers editors spouting conservative, middle American Christian values rather than anything that resembles a global view. It’s perfectly happy to have such editors telling me how I must behave, despite the fact that I have never told them how to behave.

It prefers illogical thinking.

It prefers irrational adherence to limited, cherry picked and largely irrelevant sources in total denial of the obvious reality of a situation.

It prefers blatant misrepresentation of other editors’ comments, so that POV pushing editors can argue against something that was never said, and then claim they have won the day.

It prefers editors who accuse me of supporting a particular sport and hating another simply because I point out, with evidence, that people who live where that particular sport is popular use a name for it that they would prefer to see used only for their favourite but different sport.

It prefers opinion to facts and knowledge.

It allows the most outrageous lies and bullshit to be written about editors at AN/I, without consequence.

It prefers ostensibly nice contributors who repeatedly tell me how I must change, but who do absolutely nothing about the above problems.

I take pride in the fact that during election campaigns both in Australia and the USA I was accused by supporters of both sides of supporting the other, because I got in the way of their POV pushing.

I have made my best efforts. Those efforts are clearly no longer wanted.

The Wikipedia civility police have condemned me for writing "effing". They failed to condemn the editor who made me angry. That editor was very bad mannered and/or incompetent. He was pushing a blatant political POV. He began a conversation on a Talk page, then ignored the single response (mine) and changed the article anyway. I reverted, asking him to continue the discussion. He said he didn't understand why I had reverted. I had explained the reason in my Edit summary, and it should have been bloody obvious to any normal human being. But he didn't use a naughty word, or even a hint of one, so he is a hero to the civility police. They endorse bad manners and POV pushing, but not pretend naughty words.

I can't work in a place like that.

Bye.

OK, I'm back for now, because I finally saw some evidence that some of the offenders had at least noticed my words and thought about them just a little bit. I suspect that some had thought about them a lot, but were nowhere near ready to announce their epiphany. That's OK. Radical ideas (not radical to me, but to the listeners) often take time for society to publicly accept.

Let's see how long those with rigid ideas and tunnel vision who like silencing those who challenge the status quo can leave me alone this time.

I'm a small time player in the Wikipedia space, interested in many eclectic things.

I seem to have become a keen vandalism watcher and a bit of a protector of Wikipedia against those who think they can write what they like anywhere on Wikipedia without any concern for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and many other policies. This naturally makes the POV pushers angry. They would like me out of the way. This has led to some interesting attacks on me. The number of pointless visits to AN/I attests to that. I wonder if there's a world record for that? Sadly, boomerangs are rare. More frequent application of that policy would save good editors a lot of time.

A bit of a pedant, I can be seen fixing grammar and spelling here and there. I especially enjoy re-correcting incorrect corrections made by usually American editors who are seemingly unaware that there is more than one way to spell many words in English. It's a true labour of love. There are also the Americans who don't realise that the rest of the world writes dates in far more logical ways than they do, and cannot comprehend silly things like Pi Day.

I often find myself tidying up the editing on sports articles, where the enthusiasm of the fans is not always matched by their skills with encyclopaedic English.

I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again some, mostly American, editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here. Apparently Conservapedia isn't enough for them. And I've never seen a naked nipple, or even bare flesh without naked nipples, hurt anybody, especially children.

Mind you, I love America, and many Americans. The country's and their image, however, is damaged severely in the eyes of the rest of the world by those whose values come from a very conservative and narrow interpretation of the Bible, and who proudly and aggressively promote those values, including here on Wikipedia.

Sadly, the words above have led to an American editor saying that I am displaying "opposition to American editors as your mission statement on your user page, complaining about US spelling style and claiming, among other things, that the country's reputation had allegedly been damaged by its interpretation of the Bible."

I wonder why some people living in the world's most powerful nation feel so insecure as to have to resort to such misrepresentation.

The latest (Jun 2018) on English versions - "This user goes around editing American English to British English under some Euro-supremacist power trip." Didn't even notice I'm Australian, and it was Australian English I preferred. I even had to revert changes of the spelling in Australian English from US English back to Australian English. Oh the ignorance.

I've decided to take a non-swearing vow. It will be a challenge, because swearing is common where I work, and I do get frustrated when I see bullshit masquerading as truth. (Is bullshit swearing?)

The reasons are not trivial. I've managed to upset some conservatives here and been dragged to AN/I several times. (One "conviction". No acceptance of guilt. No remorse.) Every single time, especially, but not only in the case of the conviction, the "evidence" presented to prove my guilt has included a multitude of lies. I have upset some editors by coming on strongly against their bullshit (even when I don't swear), and it seems to make them want to do anything to get rid of me. I don't lie, and am always stunned when so many others do, so outrageously, so often. Maybe I shouldn't be.

The problem with the lies is that it becomes an avalanche. A single accused editor has no hope of defending himself against it. Whether or not there is truth among the lies, no valid case exists among the bullshit, the bullshit remains on display. Even if the whole case is thrown out (as has happened many times now) the lies remain on display in a closed thread that nobody is supposed to touch. The accused has no way of getting it removed.

Sadly, Wikipedia seems far more comfortable with lies than with swearing. (I do wonder which part of the world's culture's this comes from?)

So, no more swearing from me. Wish me luck!

Good luck! I am a bit sceptical of this civility thing too and of admins who hand out blocks to editors as a techer would hand out punishments to naught pupils. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Pete sucked me in again. He really is obsessed with proving me wrong, and with proving that Tony Abbott is a god. Must try harder. But it's difficult when he stalks my every edit on any Australian political page. Someone wise once wrote that more wars have been fought and more evil done because of irrational love of a leader (real or imaginary) than hatred of any enemy. I think that's what we have there.

Ever noticed how the niceness police often demand that those whose language offends their precious sensibilities must swear less, but those who are their targets never demand that the civility police swear more?

I had a recent experience that might shed light on this. First off, I don't know you and have not to my knowledge been involved in any dispute or extended conversation in which you were also a participant. I have not reviewed your contribution history.

See, there's no Wikipedia rule against, say, lying about why you're really objecting to disputed content (editor 1: This is, uh, poorly sourced! editor 2: okay, here's a better source. editor 1: Well now I don't like it because, uh, it's original research! editor 2: Here's proof that it's not. editor 1: Now I have a new reason!). There's no rule against doing no work except hitting the delete button and whining at the people digging up sources to work faster and do better to meet your unreasonable standards. There's no rule against pulling yet another hoop out from under your hat and yelling "JUMP! JUMP!" when they finally meet your unreasonable standards. There's no rule against repeating the same argument over and over. There's no rule against ignoring evidence that doesn't conform to your opinions. It's hard to get someone censured for treating his or her own views as gospel while insisting that everyone else provide proof. What else? Oh! It's hard to get people censured for accusing other people of doing the thing they're doing so that it looks like they're just going "am not!" if they try to file a complaint. You get the idea. A few weeks ago, I filed a complaint against someone for cursing at me (after I'd asked him to stop more than once) because that was the only one of the many many things he was doing wrong that I could clearly point to and prove.

So if people keep trying to block you for cursing, could there be something else going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo speaks bluntly. They haven't mastered the art of sneaky Wikipedia warfare, where you use policies and guidelines (contrary to their intent) to conduct warfare against people to "get" them. That's why I like HiLo48 so much even though we seldom agree. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll be brave and recount a story. Can't recall the precise circumstances, but in a discussion where NRA fans were participating (along with others not so keen on guns) I made the unarguable statement that most Australians think that members of the gun lobby in America are nutters. I know that, if necessary, I could find plenty of evidence to support that position. Australia had major gun reform 17 years ago, after the Port Arthur massacre. Gun ownership is virtually a non-issue now. There have been no mass shootings since, and most Australians now have no interest in owning guns, and cannot comprehend why so many Americans do. We haven't been taken over by Communists or Nazis. I was then asked if I was one of those Australians. Not surprisingly, since most of us are, I told the truth and said yes. That was the trigger. That was deemed a personal attack on every NRA member and supporter that ever lived. I was blocked instantly. At least three Admins fought over how long my block should be for. It was all very unseemly. And all because I'm part of the overwhelming majority in my country. I felt somewhat trapped. Certainly makes me reluctant to want to play in the playground with those kids again. Felt it was safer to avoid them.

Speaking as an American, our two political parties (which are both growing further from the center because of gerrymandering and other problems) are clearly placed at opposite ends of the states'-rights/centralized-government spectrum. Right-wing politicians see supporting gun rights as a way of supporting individuality and independence.

Ever since the French and Indian War, the U.S. has had this idea that the self-trained, self-armed frontiersman defending his home is more effective than a paid professional soldier because of rumors that the Redcoats lost to the Native Americans because they rigidly clung to their formations and the Indians just walked up to them and tomahawked them while they were drilling. In reality, the Redcoats lost because they got scared and broke formation, but you can see why the British and Americans would prefer the story to the reality. This leaves people thinking that if their government ever turned tyrannical and came after them, they'd better have their rifles ready to go. There's a reason why fictional characters like Hawkeye from The Last of the Mohicans and Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games are so popular in the U.S.

And almost all the school shootings happened to someone else's kids. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have an IBAN in place. Many thought the other party had breached it. It went to AN/I. After 12 days it was closed with no result nor explanation. I asked why, and was told that in asking I was breaching the IBAN. I don't understand. This place is depressing and confusing at times. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)